Space – as a form of ‘Nothingness’:

Posted by Magellanic Cloud on June 29, 2007

Our Universe is considered to be made up of matter, energy and space. At the level of sub-atomic particles, Quantum Physics has found that both matter and energy behave like ‘waves’. There are some modern scientists-cum-philosophers who assert that ‘space’ is also composed of waves. They actually think that all the reality is made up of just ‘space’ and ‘space’ itself is made up of ‘waves’. Here, I disagree to the idea that ‘space’ is made up of waves. My contention is that space is NOT ‘composed’ of waves but actually space just ‘holds’ waves. Space is the name of nothingness. Space is the name of complete non-resistance for physical entities (waves: matter + energy). Space has no dimensions. Space has no measurements of its own. Space has no vastness. It is not right to say that space is finite or infinite. Because Space is ‘nothingness’. Space has no positive ‘existence’. Space, being complete non-resistance, neither attracts, nor repels anything. Those modern scientists-cum-philosophers also show amazement that how comes that matter is ‘suspended’ in space. For me, it is just due to the simple fact that space itself neither attracts, nor repels anything. So there is nothing to wonder for why objects are suspended in space.

We never measure ‘space’. We only measure ‘material entities’. For instance, 3 meters of ‘space’ is not 3 meters of ‘space’ in the real sense. 3 meters of space is actually just equal to 3 physical meters. In this way, neither we ever measure space, nor space can be measured. Only material entities can be measured. And since ‘space’ is the name of complete non-resistance, so space offers no resistance even to the measurements of material objects, to their mutual distances or to any other form of their mutual interactions. And if there is ‘distance’ between two material objects, it does not mean that any space of particular measurement ‘exists’ between those two objects. Those two objects are away from one another with distance, which is equivalent to particular number of times a physical object such as a meter. As space is ‘nothingness’, so it should have no ‘dimensions’ as well. We know of ‘dimensions’ also only in terms of material objects. It is the ‘geometry’ of physical objects, which makes us think as if space is having 3 (Some modern theories of Physics are advocating for even n-dimensions) dimensions.

So I have this type of objections in mind. For me reality is not space because it is a non-existent entity. Reality should be seen in those entities that positively exist. There are two things which are known to have positive existence which are: (i) matter and; (ii) Energy. And since both these things have been found to be made up of single entity i.e. ‘waves’, so instead of considering ‘space’ to be the source of all reality, I think it better to consider ‘waves’ as the source of reality. But we also should properly distinguish between existing entity and non-existing entity.

If waves only have discrete motion (as per Quantum Physics), then why to even talk of any kind of continuous physical motion at all? For me, all physical motion, including physical motion of ordinary objects is not continuous at all. All physical motion is discrete. Consider a simple situation. My car is moving at the speed of 100 Km/hrs and it is raining outside. Suppose vertical velocity of a raindrop was 10 Km/hrs whereas that drop had zero horizontal velocity. Now when that drop shall collide with my windscreen, it will at once acquire horizontal velocity of 100 Km/hrs. So obviously there has been a sudden change in the velocity of that drop. I can give many other simple such examples. Since the examples are too simple so I assume that readers shall understand at their own. However, I shall elaborate this point in further details in my next posts. Here, I can confidently proceed that all physical motion is only discrete. Here Zeno’s famous paradox also can be very easily solved. Zeno had argued while assuming continuous physical motion and physical existence of ‘space’. But since space has no positive existence at all and the motion of physical objects is only discrete, so logically it is possible that material objects can cover distance and so reality is not static but reality is there in variations.


7 Responses to “Space – as a form of ‘Nothingness’:”

  1. mindloop said

    You may call space absolute nothingness, but I would call it a continuum of potentials. Is matter occupying space? Can something occupy nothing?

    Most of the space that my body takes up right now (in a fuzzy sense, since there is no crucial distinction between my body and not my body at the subatomic level or anything like that) is actually just space. So if I were to measure my height, what would I actually be measuring? It would be the length of space I occupy along a specially defined dimension. (From my the “bottom” of my feet to the “top” of my head.)

    There are other measures too, like surface area and volume. In mathematical abstraction, there is a lot concerning the theory of intrinsic volumes, but this has the problem of being entirely continuous. My body is not entirely continuous. I am made up of individual particles that make up atoms that make up molecules that make up organelles that make up cells … that make up organs that make up my body. As for the information of the individual particles (speed, relative position, time dilation, etc.), there are very possibly continuous variables.

    Quantum mechanics does not postulate “discrete” motion (as in integer multiples of certain values). There are “discrete” _states_ (eigenfunctions), but even these interfere with each other with their probabilities and make up the wavefunction, a superposition of potentials.

    How can there be varying measures of nothingness? In contrast, there can be varying measures of potential. You seem to be too wild in your desire to have a metaphysical interpretation of the universe.

    In that light, I would like to say that I think that some metaphysical theories cannot be known by observing the universe. When we attribute certain human concepts to things like particles, space, motion etc. we can have only superficial meanings sometimes.

    For example, I could construct bunches of metaphysically different theoretical universes, but relative information of entities in the universes would be the exact same as ours. (I’m fairly certain that there are over 2^(2^N_0) “different” universes.) What metaphysical properties of the universe can we know if we are ourselves embedded within it? Are there even any objectively existing unknowables? (Not like we’ll know anyway!) It happens that there is a lot of undecidability, and perhaps even meaninglessness in some metaphysical assertions.

    As for whether the variables/quantities describing physical systems are discrete or continuous, it is not necessarily possible to experimentally verify either. As for reasonable explanations of experimental findings, I would argue that continuous variables are more justifiable, yet there truly is nothing truly ruling out whether it really is continuous or just discrete multiples of very tiny amounts that cannot be broken.

    Your raindrop analogy reminded me that the Earth is round. (Well, close anyway.) What do you think of a circle in a discrete system? The elliptical orbits of planets around the sun, as discovered by Kepler, would be extremely hard to posit in terms of discrete physics. Things like velocity and acceleration would not be the same as derivatives of their primitives (Calculus), they would have be difference functions or retain continuous information.

    In a discretized state system, sometimes behavior can be approximative to continuous behavior, but it can never last because of mathematics. So if these discrete units fundamental to the universe were large enough (relative to us non-microscopic entities), then we may be able to see slight and progressive divergence from continuous behavior.

    I hope this reply wasn’t too long, I tried to abridge it as much as I could and retain its full content.

  2. khuram said

    […] — You may call space absolute nothingness, but I would call it a continuum of potentials. Is matter occupying space? Can something occupy nothing? — […]

    Let me please explain that I have not called space “absolute nothingness”. I have called it a “form of nothingness”.

    Please check following words of article:

    “Space is the name of complete non-resistance for physical entities (waves: matter + energy).”

    So actually I am talking about a “form” of nothingness. I am not talking of any “absolute” nothingness. This “form” of nothingness has a distinguished quality. The quality is that this type of nothingness offers complete “non-resistence” for “physical entities”. In this way, I actually agree with your point of view that space is a continuum of potentials.

    “Absolute Nothingness” would be that one where existence of physical objects or even abstract ideas would also be impossible. And Space is not this type of absolute nothingness.

    You ask can something occupy nothing?

    My reply is that something cannot occupy absolute nothing. But something, like physical entities can occupy a form of nothing … which is space.

    Secondly, I am not convinced that by measuring your body, actually you measure space. By measuring your body, you are comparing your body dimensions with some standard measuring instrument, which has to be a physical objects.

    So body size is not equal to this much of space. Your body size is actually equal to this much of standard physical measuring instrument.

    I have pointed out in the article that space, being a form of nothingness, offers complete non-resistence even to the sizes and dimensions of physical objects. This characteristics of space actually gives the illusion as if we measure space. It works like that let’s say you calculate diameter and height of a cylinder. In this way you calculate the volume of that cylinder. This calculated volume gives the “illusion” that you have measured space. No! you have only measured “geometric capacity” of that cylinder. Then you fill that cylinder with some liquid. Now, under the “illusion” that the liquid is equivalent to this much “space”, you successfully fill another container of same “space” with that liquid. This fact further strengthen the illusion.

    Actually it is due to the fact that space, being a form of nothingness, offers complete non-resistence even to sizes of physical objects. You cannot compare sizes of material objects with any standard space. You can only compare sizes of material objects with some standard material objects. Meaning of non-resistence for sizes is that you will take same reading of sizes of material objects when you will compare them with different standard material objects.

    About discrete motion:

    I still have to work a lot on this issue. What I can say here is that your reply to raindrop example is insufficient and unsatisfactory. You should prove that this example doesn’t lead to discrete reality.


  3. muhammad umer toor said

    I don’t know why you said our space is absolute nothingness. If it were than Allah didn’t exist, if it were so than nothing could be created in space, for things to interact, they need enviorment. Secondly, do agree that pair production can take place in space, which you call vacuum? Yes it happens. Actuall space is a jampacked of all kinds of particles, upon heating up by radiations they can be detected like in case of pair production and annihilation of matter. So from where do they come, “from virtual states of vaccum” is the physcist answer. Today I can’t refer you a book which illustrates such experiment( though thought experiment) but it says that experimentally it has been verified that vaccum is dense jampacked of condense particles. Reflections. Your Toor. Regards

  4. khuram said

    Thanks Muhammad Umer Toor for your valuable points and comments. Actually I have not called space as “absolute nothingness”. You can see my reply to Mr. Mindloop in comment No.2. (i.e. your’s is comment No.3)

    Secondly I am not talking of “vaccum”. If space is “jampacked” of all kinds of particles then it should be solid and resistent!

  5. Richard Price said

    I am quite excited about this “space” as another way of seeing Emptiness, very clear it is easy to come to the false conclusion that space is composed of something.

    In the beginning what was there ( just space) and then what? were there waves that formed creative substance “mind-waves”? what nature do they have?
    Is it only until sentient organisms come into existance does the mind perceive creation as space—time—-matter ( energy).

    So matter is what so kind of concentrated form of pyschic energy( field of energy)appearing to be bothe subject and then object seperated in time and space?

  6. muhammad umer toor said

    You said if space is a jampacked of all kind of paricles condensed in vacuum than space should be solid and resistant. Sir as far as my humble and fallible limited knowledge goes, it is so but they are in virtual states (as I wrote earlier) and they can be detected in vacuum by heating at suitable temperature and mind you space has a certain temperature. And kindly explain what kind of nothingness is space as you said it is form of nothingness and ironically not absolute nothingness. I leave it up to you research more as I believe that- Research is the mother of discovery. Thanks

  7. Richard Price said

    There are no inherently existent objects …

    Space and time are dependent solely on the consciousness of the observer to appear as they do , research tells us nothing other than it how we interpret data.

    when i see what appears to be an atom under an electron Microscope what am I actually seeing, some form of projection ( psychci energy field?) displaced in space and time to appear as “matter” or a swirl of energy.

    Consciousness ( Emptiness) is the creative field from which everything manifests, this can only be verified through Meditation or in other mystical states.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: